These views, and they are shared by other critics, are of weight. Yet it is doubtful if they do justice to the phenomena on the other side. It is very significant that the author's meditations end as they began — 'Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.' Would this have been so if he had really fought his way back to the faith of his childhood ? Comill seems to overstate the case when he says that similar passages run through the book, and that the fear of God and God the Judge are cardinal conceptions. The theism of the book is not very pronounced. Cheyne says with justice : ' To me, K. is not a t heist in any vital sense in his philosophic medita- tions. . . . He certainly never lost his theism, though pale and cheerless it was indeed, and utterly unable to stand against the assaults of doubt and despondency.' Looking at his speculations from a somewhat different viewpoint, it might even be alleged that T^.'e theism is the source of all his per- plexities. To every Hebrew, God and Providence were convertible notions, and this God, which to Job was an immorality, might be to K. a puzzle. Upon this theory it may,of course, be urged that rigid con- sistency is not to oe expected in a man of the writer's temperament, who would speak according to his mood. Yet we may surely think that a man of his intellectual power and close observation of life would have some fixed principles ; and we find tliem running through most of his meditations. ''Vhen we find a few sayings that seem to run contrary to these, we may either try to explain thera in harmony with the general view of the author, or regard them as interpolations due to a working over in the interests of orthodoxy. Either course seems preferable to that of leaving them as unreconciled contradictions. It seems on the whole most probable that at least 12'*- "•• " are later interpolations (assuming that ' thy Creator ' is correctly read in 12'*), and possibly also 3" and ll**. On the other hand, 12^ can be explained so as to avoid any conflict with the author's views. Tbv view of KrochQiAl with re(er«Doe to the Epilogue must
not be pa»ed over in silence. He regarded 1211- •> or liiii« (11 is not clear which) as appended to the whole o< the third division of the Canon (the Kethubim or Ha^ojfrapha), and not simply to Ec. Oraetz adopted the view that 12"-'* was added as the conclusion of the Kethubim, but thought also tiiat the collectors of the third Canon added 129- 10 as an apology for Ea Renan accepte 129- '0 as by the author of Eo, and agrees with Krochmal as to 12'1- 1», and also considers 121S- 1« as unauthen- tic. It is unnecessary to discuss this \iew, which rests on pure hypothesis, and has been almost universally rejected.
Before leaving this part of the subject, it remains only to speak of the bold and original theory of Bickell. Eng. readen may find it presented in Dillon's Sceptia of OT, with a tr. of the book as rearranged, and in Claeyne's Job and SoUrmon (p. 273 ft.), where it is criticized. It is that the Heb. MS from which our text is descended met with an accident. The sheeta became disconnected, and, in replacing them, owing to a turning of the 2nd and Srd sbeeU inside out, the text was completely dislocated, and passages were brought into juxtaposition which had originally no connexion with each other. Two seta of interpolations were then made. One series was designed to connect the verses which had been thus brought together. The other interpolations were intended to give the book an orthodox tone. The detailed working-out, which is very brilliant and ingenious, cannot be exhibited here. We may, however, give bis results aa to the original book and its order. He make! the orig. K. to consist of the following passages in the order given:— 1»-21» 6»-67 3a-49 2H-S8 88-93 815 91l-10> 6a-7*>-» «l*-58 1018-lls. » 72i-8s» 102-1»- 1« 93-10 117-128. The theory is open to very serious objections. It is questionable whether it will stand the teat of exegesis ; and to quote Cheyne's words ; ' Apart from other difficulties in the way of the theory, the number and arbitrariness of the transpositions, additions, and alterations are reason enough to make one hesitate to accept it' Kuenen also sa>'B that it is as good as unthinkable that aJl the accidents assumed should have taken place together, and combined to produce our Bk of Ec. Euringer has urged an objection, which if valid is fatal to the supposition that such an accident could have occurred. It is that, at so early a period, the codex form would not be used, but the roll form, and therefore there would be no sheets to be dislocated by such accidents as are postulated by the theory.
4. Contents and Thought.— It is very difiBcult to give an account of the contents of Ec which shall be at once clear, brief, and adequate. 1'here is very little strict development of the thought, and the endless repetition which the writer sees in nature and life has its partial counterpart in his book. The difficulty is increased by the uncer- tainty as to interpolations and the exegesis of particular passages. The following outline may be given. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. No profit comes to man from all his toil. Nature and man go ceaselessly round and round in the same conise with utterly wearisome monotony, and there is no new thing under the sun ( H"). K. being king over Jerus. uses his wisdom to understand the life of men, and finds that all is vanity (I""). He finds, too, that the search to know >\'isdom and folly is vanity, and that wisdom brings sorrow (1""). He tries to find happiness in pleasure, and exhausts every source of enjoyment, but finds it is all vanity (21-11). Wisdom far excels folly, yet wise and fool